The Ban on Confederate Flag Memorabilia Is Having One Unintended Consequence…
BY CONOR SWANBERG
The Confederate flag has been under heavy fire following the shooting in Charleston. It’s been removed from major stores like Walmart, Ebay, and Sears.
But now small, independent stores which still sell the merchandise have been surprised with an unexpected consequence—a massive spike in sales.
CNN Money has been actively tracking and interviewing stores that sell the items, such as Flag and Banner, based in Little Rock, Arkansas,
Owner Kerry McCoy has been surprised:
“Somebody in Rhode Island ordered in 50 Confederate (lapel) pins”
“We sold 20 (flags) today and we would normally sell none,”
Another small business owner, Freddie Rich, who runs the Rebel Store in North Carolina, said that sales are “unbelievable right now. This is something I never envisioned.”
He has sold nearly 200 flags in 24 hours, and included this message on his site:
The message reads:
“We appreciate your support during this terribly sad time while the intolerant, the mean spirited, and the uneducated attack our Proud Southern Heritage with a vengeance.
Sorry – we have sold out. Thank you so much – our faith in the South has been renewed!
If you have already placed an order with us – please be patient and rest assured that we are working as quickly as possible to get your order out to you and we will send an email as soon as we ship with the tracking information. We have received over 3,000 orders in less than 24 hours, when a good day for us is 20 orders in 24 hours. We are filling them and shipping in the order in which they were received.
As soon as we are ‘caught up’ with the backlog, we will again have the website back up and running.”
There’s still no verdict on whether or not the Confederate flag will be removed from the South Carolina statehouse grounds, but that hasn’t stopped people from scooping up whatever they can get their hands on after large vendors ceased sales.
This sort of thing is one more reason why confidence in government is at all-time lows.
Nick Gillespie|Jun. 25, 2015 8:38 am
Regular readers of Reason.com know all about the recent federal subpoena and gag order we received.
The subpoena asked for identifying information we had on a half-dozen readers who left angry comments on a post about the verdict in the Silk Road Trial.
The comments ranged from suggesting the judge in the case should burn in hell to suggesting, in a well-known Internet homage to the movie Fargo, she be fed “feet-first” into a woodchipper. As Matt Welch and I have written, “The comments are hyperbolic, in questionable taste–and fully within the norms of Internet commentary.” They certainly don’t rise to the level of threat that should trigger requests from federal prosecutors.
We notified the commenters, who could have moved to quash the subpoena. Then the government hit us with a gag order, prohibiting us from talking about even the existence of the subpoena and the gag order. We fought to get the gag order lifted and once it was, we’ve been talking about the case.
I’ve got a new column up at The Daily Beast that gives more background on the matter. Here are some snippets:
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / June 18, 2015
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down a town’s sign ordinance as an unconstitutional, content-based regulation of speech. This ruling for free speech means the government can’t pick and choose what speech deserves more protection based on the content of the speech.
Like most other towns in America, Gilbert, Ariz., regulates when, where and how signs may be displayed around town. Temporary non-commercial signs are classified by their content, and each category has its own set of regulations.
Real estate signs, for example, may be up to 80 square feet, and political signs may be up to 32 square feet; political signs may be displayed for four and a half months before an election, including in the public right of way; and homeowners’ association event signs may be displayed for 30 days.
The Good News Community Church, which holds services at different facilities such as local schools because it doesn’t have a permanent church, uses signs to invite people to services. Because the signs include directional information (i.e., an arrow pointing to the location of the service), they may not be bigger than 6 square feet and can go up only 12 hours before their Sunday services start, meaning the signs are posted late on Saturday night when they are hard to see in the dark.
The church challenged the town’s sign code in 2007 as an impermissible content-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment. The district court in Arizona upheld the sign code, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, finding that there was no evidence that the town adopted its sign code for a discriminatory purpose.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Good News Community Church, concluding that these sign restrictions are content-based regulation because they define the categories of temporary, political and ideological signs on the basis of their messages and subject each category to different restrictions. As Justice Clarence Thomas points out,
If a sign informs its reader of the time and place a book club will discuss John Locke’s ‘Two Treatises of Government,’ that sign will be treated differently from a sign expressing the view that one should vote for one of Locke’s followers in an upcoming election, and both signs will be treated differently from a sign expressing an ideological view rooted in Locke’s theory of government.
The court found that these restrictions are subject to, and do not survive, strict scrutiny because the town did not demonstrate that the differentiation furthers a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly drawn. Assuming the town has a compelling interest in preserving its aesthetic appeal and traffic safety, the code’s distinctions are highly underinclusive.
Thus, the town cannot claim that placing strict limits on temporary directional signs is necessary to beautify the town when other types of signs create the same problem, and it did not show that temporary directions signs pose a greater threat to public safety than ideological or political signs.
The Supreme Court also pointed that the 9th Circuit made a basic error in its analysis that the town’s regulation was not based on a disagreement with the message conveyed. As Thomas explains, “an innocuous justification cannot transform a facially content-based law into one that is content-neutral.” Thomas continued:
Innocent motives do not eliminate the danger of censorship presented by a facially content-based statute, as future government officials may one day wield such statutes to suppress disfavored speech … [O]ne could easily imagine a Sign Code compliance manager who disliked the Church’s sustentative teachings deploying the Sign Code to make it more difficult for the Church to inform the public of the location of its services.
This decision will not prevent governments from enacting effective sign laws since there are ample content-neutral options available to resolve problems with safety and aesthetics, including regulating size, building materials, lighting, moving parts and portability of signs.
In fact, in a concurring opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor, Alito provides a long list of possible rules that municipalities could enact regulating signs that would not be content based and thus prohibited. They range from rules based on size and location, to rules imposing time limits or distinguishing between lighted and unlighted signs.
As Alito says, local governments retain the power to “enact and enforce reasonable sign regulations.” It is just that the rules that stopped Pastor Clyde Reed from encouraging the public to attend his church were neither reasonable nor justified by concerns for public safety or the beautification of the town of Gilbert.
June 18, 2015 7:39 AM
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
WEST DEPTFORD NJ, Protests outside the home of New Jersey’s state Senate president Stephen Sweeney could be outlawed by a newly proposed ordinance.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports the West Deptford Township Committee introduced an ordinance Wednesday to overhaul its loitering ordinance and regulate picketing in residential areas.
The measure would ban picketing that’s targeted at and within 100 feet of a house in the Gloucester County town. Picketing beyond that point would be limited to no more than 10 people for one hour every two weeks.
Sweeneys home has recently been the target of 2nd Amendment activist who staged two protests at Democratic Sen. Stephen Sweeney’s home.
Officials in West Deptford say the ordinance was introduced because of protests requiring police, but they haven’t mentioned Sweeney.Critics has blasted the measure as a blatant attack on free speech and typical New Jersey politicians playing favorites and protecting their own .
By Mario Trujillo and David McCabe – 06/11/15 04:30 PM EDT
The new federal rules for net neutrality were allowed to take effect on Friday, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a motion to stay the rules.
“Petitioners have not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review,” the three judge panel said in its Thursday, ruling, which allowed the rules to kick in Friday at 12:01 a.m.
The court denied a request for a stay that would have put the rules on hold until a broader court battle is settled. It ruled that it will expedite the underlying case.
The ruling is not on the final merits of the challenge, but hands an early victory to net neutrality advocates.
The regulations reclassify Internet providers as utilities, giving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) more powers to regulate them. That includes stopping providers from selectively slowing the delivery of content to users.
“This is a huge victory for Internet consumers and innovators,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “Starting Friday, there will be a referee on the field to keep the Internet fast, fair and open.”
Rep. Anna Eshoo (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, called the ruling “critical validation that the new rules to protect an open Internet are grounded in strong legal footing and can endure future challenges by broadband providers.”
But Thursday evening, Republican lawmakers said the ruling was creating “uncertainty.”
“Unfortunately, we are now in for a long, unnecessary wait while the courts determine if the commission was out of bounds,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), and Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta (R-Ohio) said in a statement.
JUNE 12, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
to the Editor:
The mayor continues to hold civility meetings, the purpose of which is unclear. Now it appears a subject of concern is sports conduct on and off the field.
Is this an appropriate topic for the council to be involved in?
I’ve been in town for 39 years and have attended numerous sporting events. On rare occasions there have been a few angry parents and a coach or two who has been asked to leave the field. Is anyone surprised? Nothing except maybe religion and politics gets people more excited than their kids and sports.
It happens at all levels and everywhere. We are not unique. Problems should be addressed when and where they happen. That being within the sports community.
At the last council meeting, the village manager accused a sitting council member of incivility for asking questions regarding the budget and a recent job hiring. It appears that this word is being used to inhibit the political process.
If asking questions, showing displeasure and disagreeing with the powers that be is considered uncivil, then we all need a civics lesson.
Webster’s 1913 definition of civility is: The state of society in which the relations and duties of the citizen are recognized and obeyed. Based on this definition, civility begins at the top and it is the common man who should be treated in a civil manner.
It is not easy to speak out and those that do should not be intimidated by some arbitrary view of what it means to be civil.
Wielding subpoenas demanding information on anonymous commenters, the government is harassing a respected journalism site that dissents from its policies. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York claims these comments could constitute violent threats, even though they’re clearly hyperbolic political rhetoric.
This is happening in America — weirdly, to a site I founded, and one whose commenters often earned my public contempt.
Los Angeles legal blogger Ken White has obtained a grand jury subpoena issued to Reason.com, the online home of the libertarian magazine I edited throughout the 1990s. The subpoena seeks information about commenters who posted in response to an article by the site’s editor Nick Gillespie about the letter that Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht wrote to Judge Katherine B. Forrest before she sentenced him to life in prison without parole. Ulbricht was convicted of seven felony charges, included conspiracies to traffic in narcotics and launder money, and faced a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. The letter was an appeal for leniency.
Gillespie, who declined to comment on the subpoena, aptly described the letter as “haunting.” In it, Ulbricht expressed the libertarian ideals he said animated his creation of Silk Road — the same ideals that Reason upholds. The portion Gillespie reproduced reads:
The next Civility Forum will be held at 7:30pm in the Senior Lounge at Village Hall.
Rev. Jan Phillips will lead the discussion. Everyone is welcome to attend.
Dueling Rules
In 1777, a committee of Irishmen drew up the dueling code that would come to be used widely throughout Europe and America. The 1777 Irish code was called the Code Duello, and you can read the complete set of rules at PBS.org: Code Duello. This code was so popular that people worldwide came to see it as the “official” rules of dueling. In fact, the U.S. Navy included the text of the Code Duello in the midshipman’s handbook up until dueling by naval officers was finally banned in 1862 (Holland, pg. 142).
Highlights of the rules include the steps of an apology, might call off the duel; proper dueling etiquette in terms of dignified behavior; the role of seconds; and what constitutes the end of a duel.
Apologies
An apology on the part of the challenged could avert a bloody duel if delivered properly. Keep in mind that most duels were carried out when one man offended another’s honor. As such, the proper apology would logically help solve the problem, even once the duel had already begun. The Code Duello dictates a complex method of deciding who should apologize first:
Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.
The rules also dictate when an apology can be accepted, thus preventing the duel, and when no verbal apology will be sufficient:
Rule 5: As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore — the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane …
Dueling Etiquette
A duel is not a brawl. It is a controlled battle between gentlemen of honor. As such, a certain level of dignity was expected of all participants. Rule 13 is one that describes dignified dueling behavior. It is also one that was frequently broken, since many duelists did not really want to die, kill or maim. They only wanted to defend their honor. Rule 13 states:
No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children’s play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.
Since the holding of the duel itself would usually be enough to satisfy honor, duelists might use dummy bullets, or declare ahead of time that they would fire their weapon into the air or at a non-vital area of their opponent’s body. The Code Duello frowned on this.
The Code also encourages duelists to sleep on their wounded pride and then duel with a calm demeanor the next day: Rule 15 states:
Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.
Seconds
The role of the seconds is spelled out in several rules. (Note Rule 18’s reference to smooth-bored guns as opposed to rifled weapons.)
Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.
Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.
The Code Duello acknowledges that the seconds might get involved in the fight themselves, as mentioned in the previous section. The Code is highly specific as to how this involvement might occur:
Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals.
When a Duel is Over
Dueling “to the death” is not considered desirable in the Code Duello, although this may have been the ultimate end to many duels. Remember: Dueling is about recovering honor, not about killing. Rule 5 states:
… If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.
Rule 22 addresses the issue as well:
Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.
Perhaps one of the most important rules of dueling does not involve the mechanics of the duel itself, but rather who is allowed to duel. In medieval Europe, dueling was the sport of noble-born men. Although commoners did fight and certainly did face each other in contests that could be called duels, an actual, honor-bound duel had to be conducted between two men of noble rank. One reason for this was economic — swords are expensive weapons, and not every peasant had one. But it was also a means of distinguishing the upper and lower classes. Many countries had laws forbidding commoners to fight amongst themselves, while dukes, princes and even kings were expected to duel each other.
Published: Friday, May 29, 2015, 9:58 PM
Updated: Friday, May 29, 2015, 11:35 PM
The ex-Marine who organized an anti-Muslim rally outside the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix Friday evening said he’s going into hiding after receiving several death threats.
“This is proof tyranny is in America,” said Jon Ritzheimer, revealing he’s come under siege since taking to Facebook to organize the event.
Up to 500 protesters gathered in 100-degree heat — some clutching assault rifles, American flags and placards — in the latest flashpoint in the U.S. anti-Islam movement.
Ritzheimer planned the protest, billed as “Freedom of Speech Rally,” in response to an ISIS-inspired attack outside a controversial Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest May 3 in Texas.
Two gunmen were shot dead by SWAT team members as they attempted to storm the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, an event organized by anti-Islamic activist Pamela Geller.
But now Ritzheimer claims he’s been targeted by terrorists.
A tense religious confrontation at a Phoenix mosque avoided violence Friday, despite concerns the standoff would escalate.
Law enforcement officials kept watch over about 500 protesters at the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, The Associated Press reported.
That total divided into roughly 250 participants for each side, AP said.
The initial rally was organized by a Phoenix Marine who fought in the Iraq War and sees Islam as a religion promoting violence, according to AP.
The Marine and his supporters arrived at the mosque with American flags, assault rifles, pistols and cartoons depicting Muhammad, Islam’s holiest prophet.
The event sparked a counter-protest, AP said, made up mainly of supporters of the Phoenix Muslim community and other demonstrators preaching tolerance.
That group carried signs that advocated for peace and love in the community.
Dozens of law enforcement officials served as a buffer between each side.
Liberals side with Islamists who threatened to drink blood of mosque protesters
On Friday, hundreds participated in a protest held at a Phoenix mosque that reportedly included a “draw Muhammad” contest. Islamists, however, issued threats on Twitter, including one that threatened to drink the blood of protesters if Muhammad was drawn, Breitbart.com said. Meanwhile, a number of liberal counter-protesters took a stand in support of the Islamists on Friday, both in front of the mosque and online, using the hashtag “#NotMyAmerica.”
“WARNING IF U LOVE UR CHILDREN DONT BRING THEM IN THE EVENT TODAY THE WILL SPLIT OF BLOOD IN THE EVENT OF MUHAMMAD SAW DRAWINGS (sic),” said a Twitter account that has since been suspended. “WHO EVER LOVE HER OR HIS CHILD DONT TAKE THEM IN THE EVENT WE PROMISE U WE WILL DRINK UR BLOOD (sic),” the account said Thursday.
The same person also issued a threatening tweet promising the event would not finish without bloodshed. “WE WILL PAY U BACK TODAY THE EVENT WONT FINISH WITHOUT KUFFAR BLOOD WE PROMISE U DAT,” the Twitter account said.
“If an attack happens at that contest and loads of people die you brought upon yourselves, I won’t care in the slightest,” said a tweet from an account called Shariah will Rule. “You stupid kuffar clearly did not take from the Charlie Hebdo attacks. You guys are truly deaf, dumb & blind,” the same account said.
The #NotMyAmerica campaign, the Huffington Post said, was organized by the Campaign to Take On Hate, a group Antonia Blumberg said “works to challenge misconceptions of Muslims and Arab Americans.” The group even went so far as to provide sample tweets for those who couldn’t think of something to say. The group, however, said nothing about the threats leveled at event organizer Jon Ritzheimer and his family.
Pamela Geller: A Response to My Critics—This Is a War
Pamela Geller @PamelaGeller
7:37 AM ET
Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and publisher of PamelaGeller.com.
Some are saying I provoked this attack. But to kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.
Sunday in Garland, Texas, a police officer was wounded in a battle that is part of a longstanding war: the war against the freedom of speech. Some people are blaming me for the Garland shooting — so I want to address that here.
Republicans Aren’t the Only Ones Who Believe in GodViolence Is Worse Than BlasphemyNFL Probe Finds Patriots Probably Deflated BallsNBC NewsCall for Answers in Death of Bipolar Man in Restraint Chair NBC NewsCrash Test: Did Germanwings Pilot Practice His Fatal Dive?NBC News
The shooting happened at my American Freedom Defense Initiative Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest, when two Islamic jihadists armed with rifles and explosives drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland and attempted to gain entry to our event, which was just ending. We were aware of the risk and spent thousands of dollars on security — and it paid off. The jihadis at our free speech event were not able to achieve their objective of replicating the massacre at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine last January — and to go it one better in carnage. They were not able to kill anyone. We provided enormous security, in concert with the superb Garland police department. The men who took the aspiring killers down may have saved hundreds of lives.
And make no mistake: If it weren’t for the free-speech conference, these jihadis would have struck somewhere else — a place where there was less security, like the Lindt cafe in Australia or the Hyper Cacher Kosher supermarket in Paris.
Rurik, If you wish to make comments on a topic, on a blog that allows anonymity, please do comment on the topic. Every posting you comment on shouldn’t become your quarrel with anonymity. Feel free to start a blog for Ridgewood where anonymity is not permitted, and so how many people post on it. It will be more effective to have those 3 people meet you for a discussion over coffee at Raymond’s.
P.S. I remember your comments on the Valley Renewal wanting to know why people opposing it were not blogging under their own names. It didn’t take a lot of courage for you to blog in favor of it, when your wife Cynthia Halaby was a Trustee of the Valley Hospital. Perhaps there are people with opposite opinions to your whose position/relationship to Valley or Village Hall or elsewhere make them feel uncomfortable expressing their opposing opinions very publicly.
We do live in America, and there is a secret ballot. An opinion (as long as non-libelous) is a form of freedom of speech. Prior to about 1890, when people voted, it was a public matter and the community, including factory bosses, knew exactly how their employees voted. I don’t mind an anonymous blog – why are you so opposed to it? Why do you need to identify those who disagree with you?
Rurik, where have you been? Many MANY people are not hiding behind their mothers’ aprons. The ones who go to the meetings and speak up, actually recently they were lined up to speak out against the Mayor’s outrageous behavior. They are not anonymous. And there have been numerous letters bashing the Mayor’s actions, and the letters are singed by citizens. The fact that you choose to post with your name on this BLOG, where most post anonymously, does not make you more bold and does not make your opinion more worthy. And those who post anonymously are not less worthy. This is the 21st century Rurik. This is how BLOGS work.
All politics is local, and this blog, among other essential functions, supports free and open exchanges of information and opinions bearing on the politics of the VOR. Mr. Halaby is willing to put his name behind his opinions. Good for him. But in Ridgewood we suffer from a particularly bad case of the malady some refer to as “the politics of personal destruction”. In most important areas in which Mr. Halaby offers his opinion, it just so happens that the POPD malady typically operates to the detriment of people who hold considered opinions opposite to his. So to rephrase the salient point of an earlier commenter, those who are motivated to express (non-libelous) opinions opposite to that held by Mr. Halaby are to be forgiven for taking advantage of a means of publicly expressing themselves that Mr. Halaby and his like-minded friends, frustrated in their seeming inability to make headway, are determined to brand as the last refuge of the damnably timid.
How France Legitimizes Violent Responses to Offensive Speech
Jacob Sullum|Jan. 8, 2015 12:08 pm
Nine years before three gunmen executed 10 people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo for the crime of insulting Islam, two Muslim organizations tried to imprison the editor of the satirical French weekly for the crime of insulting Islam. Although Charlie Hebdo won that case, the fact that it was possible illustrates how French law legitimizes the grievances underlying yesterday’s barbaric attack by endorsing the illiberal idea that people have a right not to be offended.
The Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of French Islamic Organizations sued Charlie Hebdo and its editor at the time, Philippe Val, over its 2006 publication of three cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, including two that had appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten the previous year. One of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons showed Muhammad in heaven, telling a line of arriving suicide bombers, “Stop, stop, we ran out of virgins!” The other depicted Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb. The third cartoon was a cover illustration labeled “Muhammad Overwhelmed by Fundamentalists” that showed an anguished prophet with his hands to his face, saying, “It’s hard being loved by assholes.”
The complaining organizations argued that all three cartoons violated French law, which makes insulting people based on their religion a crime punishable by a fine of €22,500 and six months in jail. In March 2007 a Paris judge, Jean-Claude Magendie, concluded that two of the cartoons targeted radical Islamists, as opposed to Muslims in general. He said the third cartoon, the one with Muhammad wearing a turban-bomb, did qualify as an attack on Muslims in general. But because Val had published it in response to an earlier controversy over its appearance in Jyllands-Posten, Magendie ruled, he lacked the requisite intent to insult. An appeals court upheld the decision, although it concluded that none of the cartoons amounted to an attack based on religion.
FCC Chairman Strongly Hints He’ll Favor Internet Reclassification – CES
Chairman Tom Wheeler didn’t say so directly, but he left little doubt that he and fellow Democrats on the FCC will stand up to cable and telco Internet providers next month by adopting net neutrality rules that redefine broadband as a regulated, communications service. ISPs have said that such a move would chill investment. But for the last 20 years the wireless industry has been regulated under so-called Title 2 rules — with provisions limiting the FCC’s ability to set prices — and it “has been monumentally successful,” Wheeler said today at the International CES conference in Las Vegas. “There is a way to do Title 2 right …A model has been set in the wireless business.
Unless we have a radical change, we will continue our march toward the federal destruction of the presumption of liberty.
Andrew Napolitano | January 8, 2015
A British author, residing in the United States for the past 30 years, created a small firestorm earlier this week with his candid observations that modern-day Americans have been duped by the government into accepting a European-style march toward socialism because we fail to appreciate the rich legacy of personal liberty that is everyone’s birthright and is expressly articulated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Os Guinness, the author of more than a dozen books defending traditional Judeo-Christian values and Jeffersonian personal liberty, argued that we should embrace individual liberty and personal dignity and reject the “no givens, no rules, no limits” government we now have. He went on to opine that the government today is not the constitutionally restrained protector of personal freedoms the Framers left us, but rather has become the wealth-distributing protector of collective interests the Founding Fathers never could have imagined.
Yet the problem is a deep one. The Framers believed in the presumption of liberty, which declares that we are free to make personal choices, and the government cannot interfere with our liberties unless we violate the rights of others. Stated differently, the federal government cannot interfere with our personal choices by writing any law it wants; it can only regulate behavior or spend money when the Constitution authorizes it to do so.
But for the past 100 years, the federal government has rejected the Madisonian concept that it is limited to the 16 discrete powers the Constitution delegates to it, and has claimed its powers are unlimited, subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution. Even those prohibitions can be gotten around since government lawyers have persuaded federal courts to rule that Congress can spend tax dollars or borrowed money on any projects it wishes, whether authorized by the Constitution or not. The courts even have authorized Congress to use federal tax dollars to bribe the states into enacting laws that Congress is powerless to enact, and Congress has done so.
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_riaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 165
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_inhaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 166
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_mastodonIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 177
